Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

IPR2025-00041

Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00041
Judge(s)
Kristen L. Droesch, Hyun J. Jung, Brian P. Murphy
Decision Date
18 October 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2025-00041 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,058,153 B2, Google LLC and Motorola Mobility LLC jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement with patent owner Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and ordered the settlement agreements to be treated as confidential business information per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). No merits were decided, and the proceeding was closed without a final written decision.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Motorola Mobility LLC et al. vs Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentPGR2025-00062

North Sails Group, LLCvsTeam New Zealand Limited et al.

North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.

patentIPR2025-00085

MediaTek, Inc. et al.vsRedstone Logics LLC

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.

patentIPR2025-01481

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.

patentIPR2025-01084

Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.

Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.

patentIPR2026-00098

Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call